To be honest, that's putting the cart before the horse.

Public transport has been intentionally run down because a sizable number of those in power are so car obsessed they find it impossible to believe not everyone is like them. You can actually see the attitude on Slashdot, whenever walkability comes up there are people who absolutely refuse to believe anyone else would want to live in a walkable society with good public transport when there are cars to be driven, and literally want such lifestyles banned.

Those people get into power, start closing parks, making boneheaded decisions about public transport (usually under the assumption they're for "poor people"), and fuck up everything for the rest of us.

So, no, it's not a matter of public transport being improved to somehow turn car fellators into bus riders. It's a matter of getting car fellators out of office so we might be able to improve public transport.

> Probably some sheriff up for reelection looking to get his name in the news for "protecting the county".

More likely a power trip. TFA and linked TFA article even suggests the Sheriff was blaming the state saying it had no authority to order pen testing in the first place.

Good faith and a lack of physical damage should be a consideration before arresting anyone if it's obvious at the time. And honestly, I suspect however bad the GOOJF letter was, it was written expecting everyone would be reasonable, and that any questions of whether the pen testers had themselves overstepped their boundaries would be handled as a typical contract situation, not a crime. To me, this is 100% on a power tripping sheriff, not on the state, nor on the pen testers' managers.

A six miles per hour collision when the collision is unavoidable is, arguably, the best possible outcome given it's unlikely to have caused any injuries at all.

Are you trolling? You're seriously implying all collisions are the same?

And what would they have done? My guess is reduce speed to under 25mph. You know, like the Robotaxi did.

There's a lot to dislike about Waymo, but this doesn't seem like a failure on their part to me. The car drove as safely as it could in an area with hazards, and reacted accordingly when even that wasn't enough. The really interesting part will be if self driving technology becomes powerful enough to avoid even this kind of accident, not just anticipating a kid running out in front of it, but knowing what kids might and how to avoid them.

If self driving can be better than human, it'll be ready for prime time.

Are you saying you read the article as if they'd intentionally tripped the alarm? 'cos no, that's not what happened.

> A comment that ignores the fact that forced upgrades have been the Windows mainstay since computing started.

That would be wrong

> Literally everyone "upgraded" Windows by having the latest version automatically on their new hardware.

Buying a new computer is somewhat different from upgrading only your OS. That's what the subject is about.

None of them except Windows? What other commercial OSes do that?

Look at the big brave AC claiming we don't have a legal right to peacefully protest without ICE agents murdering us!

Fucking Nazi.

Also "AI remains a force for good" suggests he's seriously out of touch at this point. And didn't he bless the DRM proposal that effectively destroyed cross platform video?

How is this modded up given it deliberately quotes the summary out of context (the words immediately following the quoted portion literally render the AC's point irrelevant) in order to make an obviously false point?

Here's the words directly after it:

> video tape service provider" defined to include providers of "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.

How is this law irrelevant? Privacy has never been more under attack, and the law was deliberately written so it wouldn't apply to a single technology. What is your problem with it?

The death penalty should not apply to anyone for simply lifting up a peaceful protester who was shoved to the floor by an out of control thug who happens to have a uniform.

Fuck you.

The interpretation that the second amendment constitutes an individual right, not a state's right, goes back to the end of the civil war and incorporation. So it's a little younger than that.

In any case, Trump is now officially opposed to it, and carrying a gun with no intention of using it unless your life is in danger, and without threatening to use it, is likely to get you killed by law enforcement if you do something else they don't like. (And arguably that was true even before the ICE murders.) The second is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

And I'm not really surprised and you shouldn't be either because it appears the constitution hasn't been in force for over a year now, and was on its last legs ever since Roe vs Wade was overturned despite a lack of legislation or constitutional changes to do that, as were more minor precedents overturned.

When we have a non-fascist government again, we need to take a good, hard, look at how we got here, and make sure we don't just re-instate the old constitution. The second amendment needs a massive rewrite. And the first... we need a general allowance of free speech, but we also need mechanisms to prevent big money from drowning other voices, and a recognition of the paradox of intolerance. Germany is one of the freeist countries on Earth right now despite an extreme fascist past, maybe we need to look into why.

> you aren't understanding what Moltbot is doing

This is true, but that's because the summary says the exact opposite of what you're saying, and I suspect it's you, not the summary, that's right given that a "useful" spicy-autocomplete system generally requires more set up than "Just install this easy to download package on a discarded Mac mini".

Urgh! Slashdot!

A major issue why this hasn't happened is a chicken and egg situation where the protocols for discovery et al all assume NAT and thus a requirement for centralized servers.

Plus, to be honest, ISPs are being bloody minded about it. I don't know about France, but T-Mobile in the US blocks incoming connections (and may not be the only one), and the ISPs themselves lobbied to cripple reverse DNS. I've even heard of ISPs constantly changing the IP block associated with a customer, despite that crippling any kind of usage of the system.

IPv6 is one of the things I'd like to see informed governments impose mandates about. Every ISP customer should have a static /64 at minimum with nothing blocked and control over their own DNS. If an ISP feels that, say, port 25 should be blocked, they should make it an option the customer can turn off. ISPs can change allocated IPs if and only if the customer moves or at most once a year in the event of an actual systemwide configuration change.

But it won't happen, because it's not nerds that lobby politicians, it's ISPs.